Yorkville YSM1p vs Yorkville YSMi + power amp

  • Thread starter Thread starter ambi
  • Start date Start date
A

ambi

New member
Alright here's the drill guys, LEGS!

Ok i'm having this internal debate between getting a passive set of Yorkville monitors and an integrated amp with a volume control, such as the Rotel RA-02, or getting the powered version, and something to control the volume with such as a mackie 1202.

Now the powered version with the mixer would be a little more expensive, BUT, i'd have a mixer, with 4 good preamps. If i get the passives with the Rotel, i have a high quality Hi Fi amp which i can power any number of passive speakers with, either monitors or home theatre speakers. This is a very appealing options for me because i'd like to get a nice pair of home stereo speakers like some B&W's or something like that, i spend most of my time listening to music, these klipsch 4.1 multimedia speakers are good but i've outgrown them.

Now i was pretty set on the Rotel and the passive yorkvilles, but i was reading the specs on the YSM1p's, the powered ones, and i started having doubts.


YSMip (active) - "The YSM1p incorporates a bi-amped power module that delivers 115 watts (85 Watts of power to the woofer, 30-Watts to the tweeter) and generates less than .05% distortion at full power. The YSM1P also features +9/-6dB input trim, defeatable limiter and specialized tweeter overpower limiting and woofer over-excursion limiting. Unique to active near field monitors in this price range, the YSM1p features user selectable filtering. A series of dip switches on the back of the monitor allow the engineer to select overall tone shaping for the cabinet. This allows the end user to tune the monitor for location, (i.e. Full Space for use centered in the room (+2dB boost @ 20Hz to 80Hz) ½ space for use against a flat wall (0dB boost or cut), or ¼ space for use in corners (-2dB @ 20Hz to 80Hz). This ensures more flat frequency response, regardless of location in home studio, writing room or professional studio. An additional user selectable high frequency filter (+2dB boost @ 10kHz to 20kHz) has been added to allow further tweaking of the monitor to individual tastes"

They have those dip switches! All of that stuff above, and the passives don't have that, and in my cramped quarters they could be quite usefull. Also they are 115 watts per channel, and the passives are only capable of handling 75 watts. PLUS, the rotel is only 40 watts per channel anyways. It's a hi fi amp so i'm told it will perform better than a 40 watt per channel amp, but maybe not as good as the 115 watt per channel actives? Plus the actives are bi amped, and they have amps matched just for them.

Now here is the pricing i have attained locally for these items (Canadian dollars).

YSM1p actives - $740
audiophille 2496 - $260
Mackie 1202 vlz pro - $690
total - $1690

For the passive route, i would take...

YSMi passives - $340
Rotel RA-02 - $660
audiophille 2496 - $260
total - $1260

So that means for an extra 430 dollars i get 4 good preamps and a mixing board, and possibly more powerful and accurate monitors? BUT, i could also just spend the extra 600 or so on the passive route, and also get the mackie board... Now the Rotel alone is almost as much as the active speakers, which would leave me to believe that it is a much higher quality amplifier than ones inside the yorkville actives. BUT since it is a high quality amp, it's expensive and only 40 watts at that price range, and even though it may be a better amp, would it be better for the monitors? I mean would they be as accurate as the powered versions? Granted the powered ones would be louder and distort less. The rotel would provide me the option to get a second set of monitors and a set of hi fi speakers in the future which i could hook up to it, but maybe i should set that as a seperate goal and keep the mixing stuff for mixing? I'm trying to focus on the mixing aspect now, and maybe i should keep the Hi Fi stuff seperate? And get a hi fi amp and speakers another time, that way i could set them up in my bedroom or somewhere else? It is an issue for me, due to budget, and if i could kill 2 birds with one stone just tell me where to throw, but i'm starting to think that maybe the if i throw at the Rotel amp it would be kind of a wussy throw and not actually kill both birds? Maybe it would be best to just keep them seperate in their own worlds? I'm not putting down the passive + amp route, i'm just trying to figure out if the actives would really be a lot better! IF they are a lot better i'd go that route, but if the passives with the Rotel would be pretty much the same, hey why not get a good Hi Fi amp for some speakers down the road? It's my understanding that they should be about the same, with the exception that the rotel wouldn't be able to drive the yorkvilles really loud, and that the yorkvilles amps would be a bit more rugged, and stand up to long mixing sessions better. Being in a home situation the extreme loudness isn't so much of an issue, but i suppose sometimes you need to know whats going on at those levels?

Alfalfa gave me some great advice and i trust his opinion. But taking into account the facts that i have a limited ammount of money i can spend, and that i need preamps, maybe the active/mixer route would be more affordable/quality?

Sorry for the length of this, but to sum it up.

Active route - I get higher powered speakers that are possibly more accurate, with dip switches, plus 4 good preamps and a mixing board. I don't get the flexibility of adding extra speakers in the future for a resonable price.

Passive route - I get a high quality Hi Fi amp which i can power other speakers with in the future. But i don't get any preamps or a mixing board, but it is a little cheaper. I could buy the mixing board as well. but that means i'd have volume controls on the mixing board, so i could have just as easily bought the actives. Which leads back to my main concern, which is actually better? Are the actives actually a lot better? My whole reasoning behind the passive speakers and amp were that i didn't want a mixing board because i didn't think i'd need it. And now i've been looking around and i see that the mackie is such a great deal, it's basically 4 solid preamps with a free mixing board. I'd pay even more for 4 channels of DMP3 and wouldn't have the mixing board.


Man I guess my main issue is with the active versus passive contraversy and if the actives would really be a lot better? It just seems with the bi amping and the matched amplifiers it would be more accurate, plus it's more powerful. But there are lots of people using seperate power amps with passive monitors, they aren't bi amped, and they work fine..right?...grr.

Any help, opinions, or irrelevant advice will be appricated!
 
Last edited:
Hi Ambi. Since no one is responding, I'll make a few, possibly controversial, statements/opinions to stir some debate.

1. I can hear little difference in sound quality between a mackie and behringer ub series mixer (as long as you get a behringer that works :) ). A little behringer mixer with an RNP or grace 101 (or even a vtb-1) is a better combination than a mackie. If you want a mixer get a little behringer and save up for dedicated pres. Why dont you spend some time in your local music store comparing both mixers side by side and also comparing mackie pres to dedicated pres, now that you have read many opinions.

2. I would avoid putting a cheap mixer (ie behringer or mackie) between the soundcard and the speakers. Thats why I would go for the passive yorkvilles with the rotel for volume control and amplification. That combination is also more flexible and upgradable. In fact I would avoid having a cheap mixer anywhere in the signal path if possible for best sound quality (I understand its convenience though).

3. My guess is that the rotel with the passives will sound as accurate as the actives at typical monitoring levels, maybe better, especially if a mixer is needed to control the actives. Bring the rotel to the store and compare the actives and passives side by side.

In summary, I would get a little behringer mixer, dedicated mic pres and passive yorkvilles with a rotel integrated. That gives you sound quality and flexibility and upgradability. Hopefully someone else will now offer some opinions.
 
Last edited:
That does seem like a really good idea.
I would probably just bypass the mixer completely in that case, the only reason i would want a soundcraft or mackie is because it is a really good deal for 4 decent preamps. Basically 4 solid preamps with a free mixer thrown in.

But if i didn't need it to control volume, i'd most likely just get stand alone preamps.

So you don't think that the dip switches and all that junk on the active yorkvilles would make much of a difference? I may end up having to place them up against a wall, or in a corner, or in one of those not so great situations. It seems like the dip switches would be a good device to help get a better sound out of the monitors in those situations.
 
I not a big believer in trying to solving acoustic problems electrically ie using dip switches to make up for poor positioning. I would rearrange your room so that your speakers are positioned optimally. I had to move my bed so its facing the door now, so that the speakers werent in the corners. My mum informs me everytime she visits that it is bad feng shui but the acoustics were much improved.
 
Last edited:
Yea once i find the room i'm going to put all this stuff in then i can think of arranging it.
What is "ideal"?

at least 3 feet from the back wall, not in the corners, as close to the center of the room as you can get.. etc...?

On speaker stands, in a cymetrical triangle with your head, also positioned to a height on the speaker stands so that your ears are between the tweeters and the bass woofer.

hmm.. Does that sound right?

I do agree with your philosophy of not trying to fix a problem by covering it up with shotty solutions, but they could come in handy.

I've read about people mixing on the behringer truths, saying that the highs were exadurated and shrill, so they hit the dip switch and it was much better, etc.. stuff like that.
 
everything you wrote above sounds right regarding speaker positioning. Regarding the behringer, if they had designed it right in the first place you wouldnt need to turn down the highs.

You asked about the ra-02 being underpowered in another thread. I'll answer here rather than hijacking that thread. It is hard to say whether the ra-02 has enough power for your needs without physically testing it with the speakers you will use it with, in that particular room, at the volume you want. A more powerful amp is always a good idea but do you have the cash or are you willing to sacrifice some sound quality?
Perhaps the NAD 350 is an option. It appears more powerful than the rotel and not much more cash. It also has the soft clipping feature to avoid speaker damage in case you make the amp clip. There are obviously the more powerful rotel models and NAD c370 reviewed in detail here with measurements.
http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?633

I also found independent measurements of the ra-02 here
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download/Rotel_RA02.zip

Why dont you talk to your local hifi dealer. He should know more (hopefully) as he stocks models of both brands. Hafler also makes quite a few models that may be comparable, that your pro audio store might have.
 
That is a good idea. Yea i really just need to go in and look.

I am willing to spend a bit more cash on the monitoring setup, because i do a lot more mixing and fiddling around than i do tracking, so it would be wise for me to invest the bulk of my money into the monitoring setup.

I was looking into the Blue Sky system one setup, the 2.1 setup with the 12 inch sub.

Man that would be nice, and i could even rock that at a house party or something, it could do double duty. I listen to excessive ammounts of music so a little more investment in something that could double as monitoring, listening, and practical equipment for use with turntables or whatnot, would be worth it for me.

But they are active of course, and then that again leads back to the issue of volume control. The idea of the padded cable seems interesting, but a passive preamp would be best it seems. Pretty much everyone says that running it through a cheap mixer is a BAD idea.

What do you think about a more expensive, but better system such as the Blue Sky's? I like the idea of having the sub to know whats going on in the lower frequencies, and to thump once and a while, especially if i want it to double as a house party sorta setup (i don't really dj house party's as a rule, but i mean if i want to do it for a friend to mess around it would be cool to have a system that could make some nice sounding noise).


Another problem i keep seeing is all of these passive preamps, and what not, are RCA. Pro audio stuff tends to be all XLR and 1/4!!
 
Well you are talking about a whole different budget now and there are heaps of options eg mackies. You should do a lot more research if you are going to spend that much cash especially if you buy active monitors since upgrading/changing means selling the whole lot. I still think the passive yorkvilles are a good budget option until you are experienced enough to know your needs and appreciate the expensive gear, and upgrading is easier along that path.

If you are going to spend that much money on monitors then you will need to consider spending some cash on the volume control, like this thing I mentioned earlier http://www.i3audio.com/
or a dedicated hifi preamp. Remember if you want to use a turntable you will need a phono preamp somewhere (usually in the hifi preamp or as a standalone product). And avoid using a cheap mixer if possible as your volume control.
 
How much would that mission control device cost? Ah i see 350 US.
Well i could spend a bit more on an integrated amp for a bit more power i suppose. Maybe the next step up in the Rotel line? Hrmmfff. I like the idea of having the versatility of the blue sky system, but there IS the cost factor, and that i'd have to buy an expensive passive preamp just to control the volume. For turntables it would be 2 turntables into a mixer (dj mixer, probably vestax, with a crossfader and all that junk).

Yea it is a big step up in money. It will take a lot of thought, research, and time to decide whether it is plausable/a good idea.
 
Why not consider using B&Ws as monitors?

I have critically listened to many monitors in the 500 - 800 dollar range and IMO the B&W 601 S3 beats them all hands down, no questions asked. The B&Ws were clearer, more neutral, more detailed and more accurate…. Plus they give you that ‘you are there’ feel. (This is only my opinion though, so please don’t flame me for that :))


Somehow I get the feeling that if you buy the Yorkville’s and then buy the B&Ws you might find out that the B&W is actually a superior monitor. Now to qualify my statement, the Yorkville’s are one of the monitors I haven’t had the chance to hear yet (been trying)... but we are talking about a $200 speaker vs. a $450 speaker from a leading audiophile speaker manufacturer...


So my suggestion would be to consider getting a good amp and B&Ws as both a mixing / listening setup.
Maybe you will listen to true monitors and hear something in them that I did not... but maybe you will come to the same conclusions I did… in which case you can save a little money and just buy the B&Ws.


These be the speakers I speak of:
http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.models/Label/Model DM601 S3
 
I read your thread before regarding this issue and it has been an nterest in my mind ever since. I will definatly keep it in mind. By the way, what amp are you using to run to run the b&w's?

Err, have you gotten them yet? If you're still looking around, what amp are you planning to use to power them?
 
I am using a big Yamaha int amp. It does the job, but the bad boy is really for home theater. I plan to buy an amp to dedicate to the B&Ws, but since my home theater isn’t set up, I'm going to wait... Maybe ill be asking you for help on amp choices by then :)

And yes, I have them now and love them. These speakers really deliver, but hey, they’re B&Ws.
 
ambi said:
I read your thread before regarding this issue and it has been an nterest in my mind ever since. I will definatly keep it in mind. By the way, what amp are you using to run to run the b&w's?

Err, have you gotten them yet? If you're still looking around, what amp are you planning to use to power them?
Click to expand...

Ambi,
Just curious as to what you came up with. I have been looking at the Mackie Hr824s. These are the near fields that i really want, but the price is still throwing me off. I had a set of Yorks before they were stolen and they were pretty good. Not as good as the Mackies to me,, but thats a whole nother ball of wax. So I myself was leaning towards the new York powereds then I jumped on the Mackie bandwagon. But now I am leaning back towards the Yorks and I am thinking like you. Maybe get another amp and the york passives or just get the York powereds.

If you got either one,, drop me some comments and let me know hat you think and what you did.

Thanks
Malcolm
 
I'm still jumping around.
I went from Yorks with the rotel amp, to the powered yorks. And then i was set on the mackies for a while, and then looking at the blue sky's, and then just like you the price really held me back because i'm not rich and soon to be a poor student.

In canada for me the Mackies/Blue Sky's would be 2,000 dollars more than the Yorkville powered monitors. So about 3 times the price or more, for better bass extension. Is that worth it? Yea probably but maybe not for me, considering i also need a sound card and preamps and mics, etc... My only issue now is i can't find a good way to control the volume of the Active monitors if i do go that route.

Apparantly using a mixer is a bad idea because the signal degradation is noticable, like a veil being put over your sound. Using no device and going direct to monitors from soundcard is also supposed to be a bad idea, something to do with the digital volume in windows chopping off bits and degrading the sound quality. The only ways i've found to do this without loosing quality is to buy an expensive volume control box, like a preamp that doesn't actually amplify the signal, or getting something like the Aardvark Q10 that has direct monitor outs with a volume control.

So if i had to pay an extra 300 dollars US for one of those preamp volume pots, it may not be worth it. But if i wanted to get the Aardvark Q10 anyways it would be a good deal. The rotel would be nice due to the fact that i could buy some Hi Fi speakers, or a second set of passive monitors for cheap and have a second reference, but then again if i was to buy another pair of monitors in the future it would probably be an active set like the mackies or blue sky's. I'm just worried about the Rotel being under powered at 40 watts a channel, and the fact that it's hi fi gear and not meant to be abused like pro audio gear.

Well anyways i'm going to try and listen to the mackies and the yorkvilles side by side and see if i HAVE to have the Mackies and be really poor because of it, or if i can settle with the yorkvilles. Unfortunatly i'm on Vancouver Island so if i wanted to listen to the Blue Sky's i'd have to take a ferry ride to Vancouver.

But i'll keep you posted, i'm still saving money/debating and researching. Everything that i decide on getting will influence my monitor choice. If i get a mixing board i might just suffer and control the volume with that, if i just get on really nice out board preamp like the RNP and a delta 44, i'd either have to get the passives with the rotel or the actives with a passive preamps volume thing. If i got the Q10 i could get the actives. So it's a big issue of equipment. I wish Active monitors weren't so god damn hard to control :(
 
ambi said:
I'm still jumping around.
I went from Yorks with the rotel amp, to the powered yorks. And then i was set on the mackies for a while, and then looking at the blue sky's, and then just like you the price really held me back because i'm not rich and soon to be a poor student.

In canada for me the Mackies/Blue Sky's would be 2,000 dollars more than the Yorkville powered monitors. So about 3 times the price or more, for better bass extension. Is that worth it? Yea probably but maybe not for me, considering i also need a sound card and preamps and mics, etc... My only issue now is i can't find a good way to control the volume of the Active monitors if i do go that route.

Apparantly using a mixer is a bad idea because the signal degradation is noticable, like a veil being put over your sound. Using no device and going direct to monitors from soundcard is also supposed to be a bad idea, something to do with the digital volume in windows chopping off bits and degrading the sound quality. The only ways i've found to do this without loosing quality is to buy an expensive volume control box, like a preamp that doesn't actually amplify the signal, or getting something like the Aardvark Q10 that has direct monitor outs with a volume control.

So if i had to pay an extra 300 dollars US for one of those preamp volume pots, it may not be worth it. But if i wanted to get the Aardvark Q10 anyways it would be a good deal. The rotel would be nice due to the fact that i could buy some Hi Fi speakers, or a second set of passive monitors for cheap and have a second reference, but then again if i was to buy another pair of monitors in the future it would probably be an active set like the mackies or blue sky's. I'm just worried about the Rotel being under powered at 40 watts a channel, and the fact that it's hi fi gear and not meant to be abused like pro audio gear.

Well anyways i'm going to try and listen to the mackies and the yorkvilles side by side and see if i HAVE to have the Mackies and be really poor because of it, or if i can settle with the yorkvilles. Unfortunatly i'm on Vancouver Island so if i wanted to listen to the Blue Sky's i'd have to take a ferry ride to Vancouver.

But i'll keep you posted, i'm still saving money/debating and researching. Everything that i decide on getting will influence my monitor choice. If i get a mixing board i might just suffer and control the volume with that, if i just get on really nice out board preamp like the RNP and a delta 44, i'd either have to get the passives with the rotel or the actives with a passive preamps volume thing. If i got the Q10 i could get the actives. So it's a big issue of equipment. I wish Active monitors weren't so god damn hard to control :(
Click to expand...

LOL
Yep,,, It's a never ending story. But at least you are researching now.. When I first started out I was just listening to any salesman at any Gear store.. I made many bad choices $$$.

Good Luck and Keep me posted.

Oh yeah,, since my last post I am back on the Makies again.. My partner is telling " Man lets just get the damn Mackies " I was trying to sell him on the Yorkville Powered and when he asked about the difference in woofer size,, he was like man week gonna have low problems again.. Any

Malcolm
 
Yea the Mackies are for sure better, i just have to convice my poor ass that it's worth it, and i can sacrafice putting money into other things so that i can put them into speakers.

But to other people who don't have their heads halfway into the audio recording world the price seem absolutely outrageous. When i started the idea of paying 180 canadian for a mic and 180 canadian for a preamp was outrageous, but i buckled down and did it anyways. Now 800 for a mic preamp, 800 for a mic and 1600 for a sound card with 3000 dollar speakers seems normal. But that's compared to other products, and quality, and then you take your head out of the audio world and see that it's actually rediculously expensive, and you'd have to be stupid to spend 1000 dollars on a little box that just amplifies a signal.

If i told people i know i spent 3000 on a couple speakers for mixing they'd be like "what the fuck? these things must be like 10 feet high!".

But yea it is "worth it" assuming you have the extra money. I'm gonna try!
 
I have been following this discussion for a while now as I have been going through the same decision making process. I recently made my own personal decision to just buy the passive Yorkville YSM-1i's, and I just thought I would add my two cents about why I chose that route.

Basically, I think that you can get to a point where you can overanalyze something to death. I was getting dangerously close to that point with this decision. The more I learned, the more options I had to consider, the more trade offs I was making, and the more difficult the decision was going to be. In a response by alfalfa, a good point was made. If you buy the passives and the separate equipment to operate them, then when it comes to upgrading the setup, you have more options. This was a selling point for me. Although you may eek out a little more improvement in sound quality going with an integrated system, my view is that if (and when) I get to be that picky about sound quality, I probably will not be satisfied with an entry-level monitoring system anyway, and will want to upgrade (and hence it would be nice to have options at that point).

So for now I am going to get the YSM1i's (which is a big improvement over what I have today) and use those until they no longer satisfy me needs (hopefully that wont happen for a couple of years). Based on what I read (not just on this web site, but others as well), the Yorkville YSM1i monitors are the best overall monitors in the entry-level price range. So I bought mine through www.musiciansbuy.com (for under US$250, including shipping). If you are interested, I can post again once I have had some time to experiment with them...

Good luck on your decision, and thanks for all the discussions on this post, it really helped!
 
What kind of amplifier were you looking into?

If it isn't integrated and doesn't have a volume control what will you use to control the volume?

Assuming you are using a computer, would you use a mixing board? Or just the digital volume on windows?
 
ambi said:
What kind of amplifier were you looking into?

If it isn't integrated and doesn't have a volume control what will you use to control the volume?

Assuming you are using a computer, would you use a mixing board? Or just the digital volume on windows?
Click to expand...

I will use a mixing board to control the volume. Having a good mixer in your home studio is a pretty good idea anyway. Most of my recording is done by recording tracks one-by-one. A mixer enables me to do split the input signal path so that one mix goes to the computer (which I use to record) and another mix goes to the performer (i.e. a vocalist wearing headphones). Not only can I play back existing tracks as I record a new one, but I can add reverb and delay to a vocalists mix while they are singing so that they like the way their voice sounds, and then send the dry vocal signal (without the playback tracks) back to the computer. I do this so I can play with effects on the vocal track later on to get just the right sound. This has proven so useful to me that since I started this hobby of home recording, my mixer is the only piece of gear that I have already upgraded, and I am considering upgrading it again within the next year. I would highly reccomend a mixing board if you don't alrady have one. Even if it is an entry-level mixer for now (I currently own a "Phonic" brand 12-channel mixer which I have liked for the price, however others will tell you Phonic is crap), I don't think you will be dissapointed with the flexibility this opens up to you as you record.

As far as an amplifier goes, I still need to look into studio quality amps that are in my price range. For now, I will be using a Hi-Fi receiver to drive the monitors until I know what I want (and can afford it).

Good luck.
 
malcolm123 said:
LOL
Yep,,, It's a never ending story. But at least you are researching now.. When I first started out I was just listening to any salesman at any Gear store.. I made many bad choices $$$.

Good Luck and Keep me posted.

Oh yeah,, since my last post I am back on the Makies again.. My partner is telling " Man lets just get the damn Mackies " I was trying to sell him on the Yorkville Powered and when he asked about the difference in woofer size,, he was like man week gonna have low problems again.. Any

Malcolm
Click to expand...


Ambi,
We got the Mackies.. Damn is all I have to say right now.
Still love the York passives though,, but these 824s, Damn.

I gotta remix some stuff. Let us know what you came up with. I still may get a set of York powereds.

Malcolm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top